SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47547887:
Theresa May's EU withdrawal deal has been rejected by MPs[*] by an overwhelming majority for a second time, with just 17 days to go to Brexit.
MPs voted down the prime minister's deal by 149 - a smaller margin than when they rejected it in January.
Mrs May said MPs will now get a vote on whether the UK should leave the EU without a deal and, if that fails, on whether Brexit should be delayed.
She said Tory MPs will get a free vote on a no-deal Brexit.
That means they can vote with their conscience rather than following the orders of party managers - an unusual move for a vote on a major policy, with Labour saying it showed she had "given up any pretence of leading the country".
The PM had made a last minute plea to MPs to back her deal after she had secured legal assurances on the Irish backstop from the EU.
But although she managed to convince about 40 Tory MPs to change their mind, it was not nearly enough to overturn the historic 230 vote defeat she suffered in January, throwing her Brexit strategy into fresh disarray.
[*] MP: Member of Parliament; PM: Prime Minister
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:50AM (52 children)
MP's can't agree on what they want so let the whole country have another vote.
Who knows, this time it might be without the lies and Russian Trolls. No, let them vote to be poorer.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:56AM
Ridiculous. The fools had their day early this year, the queen should suspend parliament until April the 1st as a show of solidarity.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:58AM (15 children)
You got to expect that there'd be more scapegoats where Emmanuel Goldstein came from.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:14AM (14 children)
The dilution of hate is not recommended. Proof: look how well the novichok story played in, almost too conveniently so.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:26AM (13 children)
It's classic tragedy of the commons. Lot of people want to get in on the racket and invent their own bogeymen. You almost need the world of 1984 to keep the brand stable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:38AM (7 children)
With Brexit in the brambles, 1984 is a must.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:09AM (6 children)
1605 would be better, if you ask me.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:51AM (5 children)
You mean.... the very first landing of Europeans in Australia [wikipedia.org]? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:31AM (4 children)
Yeah, but he thought it was just another bit of New Guinea. It was up to Abel Tasman to do the real discovery a few decades later. You could tell even without the name that it was discovered by a Dutchman, i.e. someone from a country where weed is legal, because while discovering Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) right down the bottom he managed to miss Australia.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:57AM (3 children)
This doesn't make him less then the first European to step onto Australian soil, even if he didn't know what he was doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:08PM (2 children)
Yeah, more evidence that taking your provisions in the form of spacecakes isn't conducive to effective exploration.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:14PM (1 child)
To his defends, seems the indigenous population hated those cakes so much that their level of aggression didn't allow a... peaceful exploration and forced a premature retreat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by driverless on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:30PM
They were already living in the Dreamtime, they didn't need dodgy Dutch weed any more.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:36PM (4 children)
Hate as a shared but limited value of a community. That's... an interesting take.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:44PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:22PM (2 children)
Care to explain that to our sitting president and the GOP? I've lost track of how many times US citizens are called "the enemy".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:34PM (1 child)
That's a pretty vague statement. I doubt there's a politician out there dumb enough to make that mistake at least with the collective US citizen. So... methinks you lost count at zero.
But if you're speaking of particular US citizens? What of it? Lots of people have lots of enemies, real and imagined. We wouldn't be helping the situation if we made it illegal to talk about it (except of course by the parties able to break said law with near impunity).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @01:44AM
These things always depend on point of view. One of the problems with it is that some will consider it precise enough even if only one citizen is called "enemy" without a solid base to do so.
They'll argue that, if the mechanism of the executive sidestepping the judiciary/legislative when naming enemies exists and is allowed , who is to say it won't be used and abused in the future by your side too?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:02AM (33 children)
I wouldn't bet on this making the UK poorer, but so what? So what if that happens?
The priority here is being a proper nation. It's good they can do this without a revolutionary war. Self-respect is more meaningful than your respect.
They have a very long way to go of course. Uncorrupting the nation's values will not be trivial. There is no possible way for islamic immigrants to be assimilated into traditional UK culture, so that is going to create a civil war or genocide at some point. We'll see if traditional UK culture survives. The place badly needs much of the US constitution, particularly the 1st and 2nd amendments.
Well, it's a start. Brexit is the first necessary step. Carry on!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:20AM (5 children)
I imagine a fair number of them already have. It's ridiculous to talk up the power of Islamic cooties. Just have a superior culture. Can't be that hard, right?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:11AM (2 children)
In survival of the fittest, "fit" isn't always what you might respect.
Here it is the most addictive, intolerant, and violent.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Dr Spin on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:27AM (1 child)
In survival of the fittest, "fit" isn't always what you might respect.
Did you mean expect?
In America, it is "survival of the fattest".
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:20AM
Most of us respect things like intelligence, kindness, planning, respect for human rights, etc.
That isn't what is "fit"
What we should expect seldom aligns with what we might respect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:44PM (1 child)
No, they've infiltrated for an objective. There is a difference.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:47PM
What's wrong with the objective of having a better life?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:23AM (19 children)
Says an AC with no skin in the game, while shit-posting at 2:15AM London time.
and then
Righto, chaps. You must die for your culture.
After and if you survive, we'll tell you that "your traditional values" are shit anyway and you will need to become more like the proud 'murikans boys.
Now, carry on. Chop-chop. You have your march orders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:37AM (18 children)
If you're going to do the First Amendment, you have to accept the consequences, such as people having religious beliefs you don't like (like Islam in this case). It's pretty absolute on that point.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:47AM (13 children)
My only objection to the above is the use of "delicate".
Yeah, well, no contradiction there... if you first do the "religious cleansing" and only after you go with the First.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:38AM (12 children)
Some abusive sarcasm may have been involved.
Which is fine until the next religious/ideological nutcase gets in power and decides to temporarily suspend the First while they do their own religious cleansing. That's the funny thing. Once there is a hole in the dike of law, anyone can abuse it, not just your side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:07AM (10 children)
Once there is a hole in the dike of law, anyone can abuse it
I like that idea. Can you elaborate? It was just getting interesting
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:48AM (9 children)
For example, consider the original AC's claim that Muslims are somehow utterly incompatible with UK's "traditional" culture to the degree that supposedly (without a shred of supporting evidence) will result in genocide, if allowed to continue. So presumably, one would do a more humane exile of these undesirable elements.
Ok, then five years later the neoliberal faction comes to power and realizes that there's a bunch of cryptosocialists out there hindering adoption of free market reforms with their counterrevolutionary ideas. The precedent has already been set. It's exile for anyone who disagrees and of course, the pretense of reinstating the laws of the land once the "emergency" is over.
Then the Greens are next. Etc. At some point, someone will go full proscription and just start killing people while not bothering with the theater of restoring rights that never get restored. It'll probably not be a full-scale 1984 scenario, rather more an authoritarian government with the dominant ideology being whoever last was in charge.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:37AM (4 children)
That's the White Genocide Conspiracy Theory [wikipedia.org], which has a surprising foothold in some areas given how utterly nonsensical it is (France/Germany will be 100% Muslim in X years with no whites remaining, and similar nonsense).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:38PM (1 child)
There is no doubt that:
- Muslims are encouraged to have a lot of children [islamqa.info] ;
- Islam is the astest growing religion and have the highest fertility rate in the world [fhttps] ;
- In the case of the European population, in many countries, the fertility is largely below the replacement rate but there is a big disparity, the fertility rate of non-muslim woman is around 1.5 and muslim one above 2.5. Just do the math...
Conspiracy? No. Just the craziness of religious fanatics.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:53PM
Used to be a lot higher than that. The world is changing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:52PM
you're blind if you can't see that invasions of browns and blacks are being promoted (through various means) into majority white countries while whites are being brainwashed into being submissive and to breed with these other races. white farmers are being killed weekly by black south africans in an admitted attempt to take the land and resources of the white farmers. watch farmlands by laura southern to see for yourslef.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday March 15 2019, @02:27AM
As the above shows, despite its nonsensical nature it has a surprising foothold in some areas. Let me guess, the ACs who replied are either American neo-nazis/white supremacists, or white South Africans? That's the two main areas where it's taken hold, among neo-nazis because, well, they're neo-nazis (which is kind of weird given that the original nazis actively recruited muslims for the SS Handschar division, here's them at prayer in Germany [wikimedia.org]), and among white South Africans as a kind of PTSD response to seeing what was formerly the most prosperous country in Africa slowly turning into another Zimbabwe via the ANC, which I do have some sympathy for even if the response is rather irrational.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:57AM (3 children)
Um, no, that's not what I meant at all.
*sigh* I guess nobody's in the mood...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:26PM (2 children)
There are consequences to turning off democratic rights when ideologically convenient. Anyone in power then has access to that switch and they won't always be on your side.
Second, the concern over Islam is way overblown and makes for a really poor excuse to overturn centuries of democratic traditions. There's a reason that freedom of religion is enshrined in every democracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:45PM (1 child)
*sigh* (again) WHOOSH!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:35PM
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:29AM
Yeah, I'm reminded of the harsh language [youtube.com] as a pretty good weapon to use.
They are proud boys, they feel they have everything under their control and do as they please, nothing could go wrong for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:23AM (3 children)
So not literally the 1st amendment. Leave out Islam. It is possible to learn from American mistakes.
The point is freedom of speech about ordinary things, which today does not exist in the UK.
And yes, this world is ultimately a kill-or-be-killed sort of place. Denial won't change that. In good times we can sometimes put it aside for a bit. In bad times, neighbors hack each other to death with improvised weapons. Most likely, western culture has less than a century left in the UK. Perhaps it will somehow find the strength to win against Islam, but that seems unlikely.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:51AM (2 children)
There's no such thing as "ordinary things" when you can exile or kill someone for their beliefs and speech. It's too easy to abuse. Plus, the UK presently has a stronger freedom of speech than what you detail above.
Except in the many places where it's not. I don't buy in the least that you've found one of the exceptions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:55PM (1 child)
Except in the many places where it's not.
Yes, the places where people are well fed, and have Facebook...
Everybody is all nice and helpful during the occasional hurricane and tornado, but if there were chronic hunger and lack of shelter to go with your religious/political fanaticism, you would all behave like the animals in Somalia, Congo, etc, stealing fuel from hijacked trucks. It would definitely be *Mad Max*. So, please, save your white man's anecdotes!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:33PM
Sounds bad. I guess that's why we don't do that.
Developed world societies just work. And everyone, including the Muslim world is moving that way. It's just a matter of time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:19AM (3 children)
The second amendment in part took it's cues from the English response to King James II's abuses (king was a catholic and really went after protestants in any way he could, including disarmament) which lead to the English Bill of Rights of 1688: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction [legislation.gov.uk]
But of course, the English also experienced the flip-side of that freedom when they attempted to confiscate Colonists' firearms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord [wikipedia.org]
Still, the discord in experience with firearms doesn't explain why GB has descended so far down the gun control path it's now engaged in pervasive knife control.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ledow on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:21AM (2 children)
Not a single school shooting nationwide in 20+ years.
If that isn't explanation enough, you really need to re-evaluate your priorities.
For reference, the US (which has a larger population but not THAT much larger) has had... 18 I think? Since the start of this year alone.
Prompted by a law change which was caused by... our last ever school shooting over 20 years ago (Dunblane... google it).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:08PM (1 child)
"Prompted by a law change which was caused by... our last ever school shooting over 20 years ago (Dunblane... google it)."
Stupid fucking pussies..
Real Americans don't put their kids in public "schools" so a few shootings at the local slave indoctrination camp is a small price to pay. Furthermore, Mohammedists are taking over your country, raping and killing your teens and young women, breeding like roaches and you sit there and watch it happen like a little bitch. What's your point?
(Score: 2) by ledow on Friday March 15 2019, @09:44AM
Pricks like you can't get a gun here.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:43PM (2 children)
The UK needs the 2nd amendment like it needs a hole in the head.
Come to think of it, if the UK had the 2nd amendment they would have a lot more holes in their heads and other parts of their bodies.
Changing the UK from a nation of shopkeepers to a nation of Funeral Directors is not an improvement.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:12PM
don't worry, you'll be a nation of dhimmis before too long.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Saturday March 16 2019, @03:23AM
So, are you saying there would be Brits rising up if they hadn't been subdued and rendered incapable?
(Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:09PM
That vote was just a vote of no confidence for entire government. Even the "leave" campaign didn't expect to win. No reasonable action is possible in face of this outcome. They just did it as part of their silly intrigues. Stuff like that is incompatible with any sort of integrity. Result of vote shows that pro EU side is even less popular. Britain just ended up without any sort of workable political forces and needs to build itself up from the ground. And no voting will help here since there's simply no viable choices to vote for.